(1988)1988June16 [STYUANIDES,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION / NDREASIOANNIDES, Applicant. v. CYPRUS GRAIN COMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 656/84). COSTAS KOUFOPAVLOU, Applicant, v. CYPRUS GRAIN COMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 143/85). Reasoning ofanadministrative act—Whatconstitutesduereasoning—Whyrequired. Public Corporations—Promotions—The Grain Commission—A decision to select acandidate should bedulyreasoned—In thiscaseit isnot—Neither the decision itselfnor the files beforetherespondentsconveyedthereason 5 whytheinterestedparty waspreferredtotheapplicants. Public Corporations—Promotions—The Crain Commission—HeadofDepartment—Recommendations—Significance—If inconsistent withoverall pic- 1250 3 C.L.R. 5 Ioannides & Another v. Grain Commission ture, theyshouldbedisregardedorgivenlimitedweight—failuretorecord them—Sufficienttoleadtoannulment—In thiscase,iftheywereinfavour ofapplicants, no specialreasons weregivenfor disregarding them—Ifin favourofthe interestedparty, theywereinconsistent with the overallpicture. Public Corporations—Promotions—Grain Commission—Confidential reports—Constitutepartoftheoverallpictureofthemeritsofeachcandidate whichtheCommission has toweighasawhole. 10 Inthiscase thesubjudicepromotion for theinterested party wasannulled.TheprinciplesexpoundedbytheCourtinannullingthepromotion sufficiently appearinthehereinaboveheadnotes. k Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderasto costs. · Casesreferredto: 15 Theodossiou v.The Republic, 2R.S.C.C.44; Panayisv. ThePortsAuthorityofCyprus
(1988)3 C.L.R. 1095; GeorghiqdesandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.666; HadjiSawa v. Republic
(1972)3C.L.R.174; Republic v.LefcosGeorghiades
(1972)3C.L.R.594; 20 · •. TsouloftasandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.426; Marangos v.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 682; Co-operateSociety.ofAlona-v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R.222; · Republicv. Harisil9S5) 3 C.L.R.106; . Republic v. Koufettas,
(1985)·3C.L.R.1950; 1251 loanηides&Another v. GrainCommission
(1988)Evangelouv. TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recourses against thedecision of therespondent topromote theinterested party toth;post of SeniorStore-Keeperin prefer enceandinstead of theapplicants. ^ 5 E.Efstathiou, for applicants. C. Velaris, for respondents. G. Charalambides,for interestedparty. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicantsby meansof theserecourses seektheannulmentof thepro motion of Kypros Kyprianou (theinterested party)tothepostof Senior Store-keeper. 10 TheRespondentsare aCorporationof PublicLawestablished by theGrainControlLaw, Cap.68 as amended byLaws 18/60, 15 54/62,30/64and83/
- The Respondents on 20th September, 1984, advertised two posts of Senior Store-keeper amongst tfreir employees. There were 14 candidates. The applications weredispatched through theirDistrictManagers; eachoneof themmadehisobservations 20 andrecommendations thereon. On 6thNovember, 1984, theCommissionmetandissuedthe subjudice decision, which isquotedverbatim:Ή Επιτροπήαφούέλαβεγνώσητωνεμπιστευτικώνεκ θέσεων καιεμελέτησε τουςπροσωπικούςκαιεμπιστευτι- 25 κούς φακέλουςτωνυποψηφίωνκαιαφούάκουσετιςαπό ψεις του Διευθυντού, αποφάσισε όπως, προσφερθεί 1252 3 C.L.R. Ioannldes & Another v. Grain Commission Styllanldes J. διορισμός στις δύοθέσειςΑνώτερουΑποθηκαρίουστους Φρίξο Κογκορόζη, Λογιστικό Λειτουργό II και στον ΚύπροΚυπριανού,ΛογιστικόΛειτουργόΠ." *, , 5 No Rules or Regulations were governing thepromotionsof· theemployeesof theRespondentCommission:Regulationswere madein 1986,published intheOfficial Gazetteon7thNovem ber, 1986,SupplementNo. ΙΠ,(I)underΚΔΠ
- • · » '. 10 ,. As itemergesfrom thewordingof thesubjudicedecisionand the,written address of counsel for theRespondentstheclaim ofofficers topromotionwas consideredonthebasisof merit, quali-· fications, seniority andthegeneral principles of Administrative Law.Furthermore, therecommendationsof theGeneralManager, weretakenintoconsideration. Theparamountdutyof apromotingbody,suchasthe Respon15 dentCommission,is toselect themostsuitable candidate onthe basisoftheaforesaid criteriahaving takenallof themintoconsid eration.In doing so the Commission should decide who is the , mostsuitable amongthequalified candidatesonthetotalityofthe circumstancespertainingtoeachoneofthem- (MichaelTheodos20 siou and The Republic (Public Service Commission),2 R.S.C.C, 44-at p. 47). . . TheCommissionhastomakeanevaluationof the candidates, to make acomparison between themandreach adecision after suchevaluationand comparison. 25 30 The RespondentCommission,being aPublic Collective Or. gan, has tokeep written records of their proceedings andgive reasonsfor their,decisions. ' -i The duty of this Court in reviewing promotions is to see . whethertheCommissionexercisesitsdiscretionarypowerinconformity withthestatutoryprovisions andrequirementsofAdmin istrative Lawgenerally, includinggood faith. 1253 Stylianides J. Ioannides & Another v. Grain Commission
(1988)Reasoning: Therequirementofduereasoninginadministrativedecisions has been stressed repeatedly bythis Court. Therequirementof reasoningisthatitspresenceexcludesarbitrarinessonthepartof theadministrativeorganandprotectstheadministration againstit- 5 self by preventing itfrom taking ahastydecision.Atthesame timeitprotectsthepersonsaffected bysuchdecision.Thereasoningmustbeclear,thatistosay,theconcretefactorsonwhichthe administration baseditsdecisionforthecaseunderconsideration mustbespecifically mentionedinsuchamannerastorenderpos- JQ sibleitsjudicialcontrol.Itmustcontainthewayofthinkingofthe administrative organ on therelevant facts which constitute the foundation forthedecision.Areasoningwhichdoesnot satisfy theseconditionscannotbeconsideredasduereasoning.Thereasoningmaybeascertainedandsupplementedfromthematerialin ,<the file of the administration -Soteris L.Panayisv.The Ports Authority of Cyprus
(1988)3C.L.R. 1095;AthosG. GeorghiadesandOthersv.Republic(PublicServiceCommission)
(1967)3 C.L.R., 653,666; Georghios HjiSavvav.Republic (Council of Ministers)
(1972)3C.L.R., 174;Republic (PublicService 2 0 Commission)v.LefkosGeorghiades
(1972)3C.L.R.,594; AndreasTsouloftasandOthersv.TheRepublicofCyprus
(1983)3 C.L.R., 426;Marangosv. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.,682 and Co-Operative SocietyofAlonav.TheRepublic ofCyprus
(1986)3C.L.R.,222). 25 Thesubjudicedecisionisnotreasoned.Itdoesnotconveythe reasonswhytheRespondentspreferred theinterestedparty.The files towhichtheyreferred arebefore thisCourt.Iwentmeticulously through them.Thereasoning for the subjudice decision can neitherbeascertained,norsupplementedfromthematerialin thefilesoftheapplicantsandtheinterestedparty. ™ RecommendationsoftheHeadofaDepartment: The recommendations of theHeadof aDepartment werealwaysconsidered amostvitalconsideration,whichshouldweigh 1254 3 C.L.R. Ioannldes & Another y. Grain Commission \Styllantdes>J. with the^promotingbody incoming,to,adecision in aparticular ..C2LSQ-.(MichaelTheodossiou and theRepublic (PublicService .Commission) (supra); Republicv. GeorghiosHaris
(1985)3 C.L.R., 106). " " . ,. \>i:'{ · 5 *. Itis .well,established, however,·that when therecommenda tions of theHead*of theDepartmentare inconsistent with the overall picturepresented by theconfidential reports,they should bedisregarded orbe given limited weight, dependingontheex tentof theinconsistency -(The Republic of Cyprus v. Antonios Koufettte
(1985)3 C.L.R., 1950). . v 10 15 20 · r. ν - η . τ, , , - ,' This Courtintheexercise of itsjudicial controlandinconsid,ering thevalidity of apromotionscrutinizes thereasonsgiven for therecommendation of the,Headof theDepartmentinorderto as certain whether they areconsistent with theoverall picturepresentedbythe^onfidential reportsof theapplicantandthe interest edparties. f •>, Therecommendationswere notrecorded. It.was theduty of theCommission toputonrecord therecommendationsof their Manager,which influenced theminreachingthechallengeddecision.Thisis.sufficient fault for thesubjudice decision tobean nulled. •• ,j , ' - [ . · , AssumingthattherecommendationsoftheHeadof theDepart mentwere unfavourable totheinterestedparty,whowas selected ' for promotion,theCommissiondid notfollow themwithoutgiv ing cogentreasons. -^ . Γ 25 ... ι · . . , . . . ' / ' · ; . Iftherecommendationswere favourable totheinterestedparty andtheCommission followed them,theserecommendationsare totally inconsistentwith meconfidential reports. 30 Thelastreportforeachoneoftheapplicantsandtheinterested party was made a few monthsprior to the sub judice decision. Theinterestedparty was graded simply "good", whereas thetwo applicantswere "very good", nearing "excellent". ^1255 J - V Stylianides J. Ioannldes & Another v. Grain Commission
(1988)Aperusal of theconfidential reportsfor pastyearsdepictsthe samepictureveryvividly.Ineednotgointothedetails. Suffices toquotesomeof theremarksintheconfidentialreportsof the in terestedparty:"Άν και του αφηρέθησαν αρκετά απότα καθήκοντα 5 του,εντούτοιςη αποδοτικότηςτουπαραμένειηίδια." Inanotheryear: "Είναι πολύαργόςεις την εκτέλεσιν των καθηκόντων τουκαι αρέσκεταιναδιατάζειτουςυφισταμένους." The confidential reportson thecandidates for promotion 10 must beregarded asconstitutingpartof theoverallpictureofthe meritsof eachcandidate which theCommissionhastoweighasa whole -(Evangelou v. The Republic
(1965)3C.L.R.,292, at p. 297; Oneof theapplicants is senior totheinterestedparty andthe 15 otherapplicantisequal totheinterestedparty. For the aforesaid the subjudice decision cannotsurvivethe scrutiny ofjudicialcontrol. There are other grounds onwhich it may be annulled, butI neednotembark on them. In view of theabovethe subjudice decision is declared null andvoidandof noeffect, butinall thecircumstancesI make no orderas tocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderas tocosts. 1256